The
Mark Rein Q&A on TeamXbox follows up on a couple of long-debunked rumors
(story and story) with the first semi-solid
confirmation of plans for a PC port of Gears of War, which the Epic veep now
says is inevitable, eventually (thanks
Joystiq). After answering one question reaffirming the game as an Xbox 360
exclusive, Mark offers the following response to the question of whether it will
stay that way:

íTil thereís something else. (chuckles) People ask me, ďAre
you going to do it on PC?Ē Yeah, eventuallyÖI donít think thatís any great
secret that we would like to do it on PC, but for now itís a 360 game.
Eventually weíll get around to a PC version. I just donít know when.

Thatís worked successfully for Halo. Halo was a big seller on PC long after it
kind of peaked on the original Xbox, and theyíre doing the same thing now with
Halo 2. We work at the pleasure of a publisher who thinks both of those are
their platforms, so I think itís ultimately inevitable, and obviously weíre a PC
company.

The big challenge is to make a game that was designed solely for the consoleÖto
take advantage of every last little corner of that console, to fill every little
crack and run as many threads as we could and do as much to exploit the power of
that machine, and make it run well on enough PCs to be worth releasing. Thatís a
challenge. UT will help us there, because Unreal Tournament 3 will be kind of
our vanguard PC product, and itís helping us get optimization on the PC. So itís
just a matter of, now, can we make Gears run on enough PCs that itís worth
sellingÖor do we have to wait in five years until everyone has a PC that can run
it?

not sure why you list the physics in fear since its not like it actually uses it much like hl2.

I mention it because the combination of the Havok physics on the character models and the environment along with the slow-motion effect makes for some really interesting and unique gameplay visuals and situations.

And im pretty sure there are max payne multiplayer mods.

There are no multiplayer mods for Max Payne. The game lacks any multiplayer functionality at all.

Speaking of PC game mods that is one area where a great deal of innovation in PC games can be found. Many features that later show up in mainstream game releases are first found in PC mods.

Uhh...there are more innovative games, and since there are more you get a better value buying a console.

The existance of more innovative games in terms of numbers doesn't make consoles a better value if the consumer can't afford to buy all of those games. PC games generally cost less and fall farther in price sooner. Therefore if a consumer has a fixed amount he can spend on games, he may get more of those innovative games by buying PC games than those for consoles. That would make PC games a better value.

This is a very odd question as there aren't exactly chess hits on the pc either.

It's not odd because someone must be buying them for those games to keep being made.

How exactly is fear more complex any fps?

FEAR has a lot of controls especially when you throw in the ones for multiplayer (though admitted not as many as some of Monolith's other FPS games). I couldn't play FEAR the same way on just a game pad.

Or quake 4?

The console. The console allows for game command macros and scripts, and that is something which is head and shoulders above console FPS games in terms of control.

And considering not many kiddy games make it into top sales for consoles I seriously doubt the demographic has anything to do with it.

I am not just talking about children's games. Consoles tend to have a lot of cartoon and more youthful oriented games which are never released for the PC. Demographics has to be the reason why because no developer or publisher would turn down the money from those buyers if there were significant numbers of them.

Gears of war is hardly kiddy.

Gears of War is the exception not the rule because like Halo it is a showcase title designed to sell a particular console. For every one Gears of War you will have dozens of Mario, Sonic, Crash Bandicoot, Rachet and Clank, etc. games and their clones.

Also sometimes pc games sell well for the consoles(like oblivion).

Sure but Oblivion was more of a simultaneous release from the PC rather than one delayed by many months such as a FEAR, Doom 3, or Half-Life.

That, and there are alot more people with consoles then a good enough comp to play the latest games, make the idea that its because most played it already unlikely as well.

It depends on the game. Major PC game releases like FEAR, Half-Life 2, and Doom 3 which showcase the latest in PC technology and don't have imminent releases planned for consoles are going to get console gamers attention if they like those types of games. Even if many of those console gamers can't play those PC games on their own PC's, they will find something to play them on be it a friend's PC or a work PC. So, the demand for those games will definitely be lessened when they are finally released onto consoles and as such sales will reflect that.

Hell resident evil 4 sold well for the ps2 a year after the gamecube version was released.

That is an apples and oranges comparison because you are comparing one console to another. The real question is would it have sold as well if it had been first released on the PC.

Plenty of duds have recieved sequels.

Not when development of the game is costly as next-generation game development is.

I think you are seriously underestimating the size of the console industry compared to the pc.

I am not underestimating it. However the console market has much more competition for games than the PC. Therefore a single-player only game like FEAR which had been released much earlier on the PC would be at best a rental not a purchase for most console gamers who are interested in it.

Fear is no less mainstream then halo or resident evil are.

FEAR is far less mainstream than Halo. Halo is like standard mainstream American science fiction like a Star Wars or Aliens movie. FEAR is Japanese anime horror like The Ring.

But why would they want this if the game itself sucked?

XBOX users like the game. So, of course they would still like it on the PC since it was predominately the same game with the minor improvements of the PC platform, e.g. mouse control and Internet multiplayer. It was PC-only gamers who generally did not like Halo or found it to be unexceptional.

FEAR does not play like Max Payne especially given the fact that Max Payne is a third-person game, has no Havok physics, and no multiplayer gameplay

Eh, controls exactly like a fps, wouldn't surprise me if someone made a first person mod and it played exactly the same. I'm not sure why you list the physics in fear since its not like it actually uses it much like hl2. And im pretty sure there are max payne multiplayer mods. I def remember a hand 2 hand mod people quite popular.

I don't want to see the market for PC games shrink due to the misguided notion that better or more innovative games are made for consoles.

Uhh...there are more innovative games, and since there are more you get a better value buying a console.

Yes, you essentially did when you dismissed every PC game mentioned in this thread as not being innovative

I don't think I mentioned any game besides oni,nolf,and fear. I did mention max payne and the sims were innovative though.

How many chess games are there for consoles?

This is a very odd question as there aren't exactly chess hits on the pc either.

Complexity is one reason. PC games tend to have more complex controls and that in turn usually leads to more complex gameplay.

How exactly is fear more complex any fps? Or quake 4? And considering not many kiddy games make it into top sales for consoles I seriously doubt the demographic has anything to do with it. Gears of war is hardly kiddy. Also sometimes pc games sell well for the consoles(like oblivion). That, and there are alot more people with consoles then a good enough comp to play the latest games, make the idea that its because most played it already unlikely as well. Hell resident evil 4 sold well for the ps2 a year after the gamecube version was released.

It obviously sold well enough that Vivendi is now releasing it for the Playstation 3.

Plenty of duds have recieved sequels.

In addition the XBOX360 version of the game has no multiplayer so there is no real reason to buy it if a person has already played it on the PC.

I think you are seriously underestimating the size of the console industry compared to the pc.

Plus the subject matter of FEAR is not really mainstream fare even for an FPS game like a WWII or special/covert ops shooter would be.

Fear is no less mainstream then halo or resident evil are.

What they all wanted was larger-scale and Internet support multiplayer gameplay.

The AI is special especially if you play the game on its most difficult setting. I am a longtime player of Monolith's FPS games, so I thought I had seen it all from them. But, FEAR's AI surprised even me at times.

Well ill just say we have different ideas whats innovative, I consider games like the sims or max payne innovative..you consider a game that plays like max payne innovative.

FEAR does not play like Max Payne especially given the fact that Max Payne is a third-person game, has no Havok physics, and no multiplayer gameplay.

You still have yet to explain why this matters whatsoever.

Yes, I have explained it but not in detail. The reason why it matters is that it can mislead consumers into purchasing consoles instead of games for their PC's. I don't want to see the market for PC games shrink due to the misguided notion that better or more innovative games are made for consoles.

The funny thing is I never said anything like this

Yes, you essentially did when you dismissed every PC game mentioned in this thread as not being innovative. If none of the PC games mentioned are innovative then no PC game is.

Why is it that pc games rarely sell well on consoles?

Complexity is one reason. PC games tend to have more complex controls and that in turn usually leads to more complex gameplay. Console games tend to be more simplistic. How many chess games are there for consoles? On the PC they are a dime a dozen. How many realistic flight simulators are there for consoles especially which have a manual the size of a small phonebook? A second reason is the target demograhic. PC games tend to be designed for an older audience whereas consoles have a plethora of cartoon platformer and other youthful titles. I think the final reason why most PC games don't sell well on consoles is simply because by the time they are ported, they are old news, and the majority of those who would have bought them have already played them on the PC.

The "innovative" fear for example didn't sell well on consoles.

It obviously sold well enough that Vivendi is now releasing it for the Playstation 3. So, "well" is a relative term. It was no blockbuster hit on the XBOX360, but I think that had more to do with the fact that it had already been released on the PC so consumers who really wanted it had already played it. In addition the XBOX360 version of the game has no multiplayer so there is no real reason to buy it if a person has already played it on the PC. Plus the subject matter of FEAR is not really mainstream fare even for an FPS game like a WWII or special/covert ops shooter would be.

Also the fact that halo sold well on the pc, you say it sucks, and saying pc games have to be better to sell seem to contradict.

Halo is an aberration for two reasons. First, because it was a hugely successful and lauded game on the XBOX. Many PC game consumers who bought the PC version including myself did so simply to see what the fuss was about. The second reason Halo is an aberration from the normal console port is that a good many if not most of those who bought Halo on the PC already owned the XBOX version. The reason they bought the PC version was simply for the Internet multiplayer capability which is what so many XBOX players had been dying for. I frequented the official Halo PC forums back before and during the game's release, and it seemed like almost everyone there claimed to already own the XBOX version of the game. What they all wanted was larger-scale and Internet supported multiplayer gameplay.

It should be familiar if you actually played FEAR although the AI is more than just "good."

I did play fear actually, and no the ai is nothing special.

Well ill just say we have different ideas whats innovative, I consider games like the sims or max payne innovative..you consider a game that plays like max payne innovative.

My point was that if a game were chosen at random, it is more likely that the game would be innovative if it were for the PC rather than a console because so many games for consoles are clones of one another.

You still have yet to explain why this matters whatsoever.

Actually it is the derivative games that sell better on all platforms not just the PC.

For all the talk about madden, I don't see 10 versions of it in the top 10 in sales every month of the year. Sims for the pc has that honor however.

Despite your ignorant views console games don't have a monopoly on innovation.

The funny thing is I never said anything like this, but you are such a defensive little girl that you read what you want to. How did you even get that from console games have MORE innovative games is beyond me.

It tanked on the PC yet sold reasonably well for the consoles.

I'm curious, you seem to imply that pc gamers buy less generic games, which is why console games don't sell well alot of times on the pc. Why is it that pc games rarely sell well on consoles? The "innovative" fear for example didn't sell well on consoles. Also the fact that halo sold well on the pc, you say it sucks, and saying pc games have to be better to sell seem to contradict.

So are the vast majority of PC games in relation to some cousin in their respective genres.

I disagree there simply because the economics say otherwise. Because the target market is smaller for PC games, each PC game has to bring something different to the table to be a sales success. With console games, the sheer size of the market guarantees that many me-too games which are totally derivarive can still find enough sales to be financially viable. Take the Scarface game for example. It tanked on the PC yet sold reasonably well for the consoles. The reason is that the console markets can support another GTA clone while the PC market can basically only support the original and those substantially different from it.

it is more likely that the game would be innovative if it were for the PC rather than a console because so many games for consoles are clones of one another.

Yeah, the sheer difference in sales between PC and consoles games pretty much demands they make the damn things worthwhile and entertaining to play anymore. But a small number of innovations occurring on one platform is still just a small number nonetheless, if you're going to play it by numbers.

...so many games for consoles are clones of one another.

So are the vast majority of PC games in relation to some cousin in their respective genres.

The fact that you cant even grasp what the definition means is prob worse

I know what innovative means as I used it in context with the definition I provided. You on the other hand foolishly seem to think it means "not found in a PC game."

Multiplayer, a storyline, hand to hand combat, good ai. Man that sounds familar.

It should be familiar if you actually played FEAR although the AI is more than just "good."

Oh yeah halo that came out years ago that sucked because it was a console game.

No, it sucked because among other things, the AI was crap compared to that of the best PC games, it required a gamepad to play it, and it had no Internet multiplayer. The real problem with Halo is not that it is a bad game. It simply is not a superlative one worthy of the praise it received from XBOX owners.

Fucking time splitters had bullet time what..6 years ago?

Does Time Splitters have bullet-time in Internet multiplayer? Hell, it doesn't even have Internet multiplayer. FEAR's combination of bullet-time/slow-motion along with the interaction of the Havok physics on the character models and Internet multiplayer is innovative. I have not seen that combination working in any prior released game and the end result is unique.

Shit there was a fps that was nothing but hand to hand that came out for the dreamcast.

Maybe so, moron, but that is NOT the point. My point is that it does not have FEAR's combination of elements. What makes FEAR innovative is like what makes the Swiss Army Knife innovative versus a regular pocket knife. It's the whole package, stupid.

As opposed to fear which has no unique thing at all.

FEAR has unique AI. Fear has slow-motion/bullet time in Internet multiplayer. Just because you are too obtuse to realize it doesn't make it less unique.

A combination of things done before is not unique you dumb fuck

Per my Swiss Army Knife example it is you who is obviously the dumb fuck.

Which is why generic games sell better on the pc then consoles

Actually it is the derivative games that sell better on all platforms not just the PC.

Oh so an intelligent young gentleman like yourself would be wise to buy a pc, because of the small amount of games for the pc its more likely a pc game is good?

Good god, learn to read! Seriously find a literate adult to teach you how (though not your parents since I doubt they can read any better than you). I wrote nothing about it making a PC game good. Innovation does not by itself make a game good, i.e. fun to play. There have been plenty of video games which were innovative but which were also poor games. My point was that if a game were chosen at random, it is more likely that the game would be innovative if it were for the PC rather than a console because so many games for consoles are clones of one another.

PC games have been and continue to be innovative including the ones cited in this thread. Despite your ignorant views console games don't have a monopoly on innovation.

Actually the definition of innovative appears to be beyond you since you have yet to grasp what it actually means despite the definition I provided below.

The fact that you cant even grasp what the definition means is prob worse.

I got to say only pc gamers would be stupid enough to try and say fear is anything but generic. Multiplayer, a storyline, hand to hand combat, good ai. Man that sounds familar. Oh yeah halo that came out years ago that sucked because it was a console game. Fucking time splitters had bullet time what..6 years ago? Shit there was a fps that was nothing but hand to hand that came out for the dreamcast.

Which is why generic games sell better on the pc then consoles

Which is why the pc platform is going to shit faster every year.

It is only the means by which the games are controlled which is innovative.

As opposed to fear which has no unique thing at all. Fear has nothing unique about it, wii sports does. One is innovative the one is not. Do I have to spell it out for you even more? A combination of things done before is not unique you dumb fuck.

I have written no such thing. What I have written is that for a game to be entirely innovative (which you foolishly believe is necessary for a game to be considered "innovative") is essentially impossible on the current platforms because so many games have already been created.

This friends, is when you read too many developer interviews with nothing but bullshit that sheep treat as gospel. Sort of reminds me when the sims online was a failure, ea blamed it on the fact that there were only a limited number of people that play mmo's, and it was impossible for a new mmo to make money. Alot of people like you believed it. Then world of warcraft came out. It's kind of funny how it's always companies like ea say being unique is impossible while the people that make unique games constantly prove them wrong.

An intelligent consumer would because it indicates the likelihood that a game for the platform will be innovative.

Oh so an intelligent young gentleman like yourself would be wise to buy a pc, because of the small amount of games for the pc its more likely a pc game is good? Suppose actually looking up information about games would be too difficult for people like you?

First, because it implies that there is something native about consoles which leads to innovative games

No, no it doesn't you are just being a defensive faggot.

The reason why that distinction is important is because it shows that the likelihood of any given PC game being innovative is greater than that of a console game.

Just a little fyi, not many people give a fuck.

Well I suppose its good for retards/family that go to a game store and pick a random game because of the box art.

If I have the choice between 50 unique games on a console with 1k games, or 5 unique games on the pc with 100, ill go with the console thanks. Because I actually know how to use the internets.

Boy, you really need to learn how to comprehend what you read. While those games are innovative, none of them is "totally innovative in every aspect." The Wii sports games are especially derivative. It is only the means by which the games are controlled which is innovative.

This idea that its impossible for a game to be innovative anymore

I have written no such thing. What I have written is that for a game to be entirely innovative (which you foolishly believe is necessary for a game to be considered "innovative") is essentially impossible on the current platforms because so many games have already been created.

There are a ton of games that play exactly like fear

If that were true, you would name at least some of them. I have played a lot of PC FPS games, and none has Fear's combination of superlative AI, story-driven action, and diverse multiplayer with integrated hand-to-hand combat and bullet time. Sure, FEAR is not a totally unique PC FPS game, but it does have several innovative aspects and its combination of elements makes it unique.

Who gives a fuck for the reason why consoles have more innovative games.

An intelligent consumer would because it indicates the likelihood that a game for the platform will be innovative.

How is it even misleading?

I explained that in the original post, moron. Go back and actually read it. It is misleading for two reasons: First, because it implies that there is something native about consoles which leads to innovative games which is not true. Second, it is misleading because it implies that most or more console games are innovative versus PC games which is also not true. As I meantioned before, the percentage of innovative games for consoles is far less than that of PC games because there are so many derivative console games. The reason why that distinction is important is because it shows that the likelihood of any given PC game being innovative is greater than that of a console game.

how are you guys(I'm assuming)over the age of 12 and don't know what the word innovation means is beyond me. Nolf one of you best examples? What a joke.

Name a single recent video game which is totally innovative in every apsect. You can't because all modern games derive at least one aspect from those that came before them.

Sure I can. Katamari damacy, loco roco, wii sports etc, these are innovation. Hell metroid prime while at its heart is a fps, does not play like any pc fps. There are a ton of games that play exactly like fear sorry.

This idea that its impossible for a game to be innovative anymore is a excuse by developers that cant think of anything, and people like you are dumb enough to believe anything you read.

Yes, but it is a grossly misleading statement due to the fact that console games outnumber PC games by such a wide margin. The real question is what platform has the highest percentage of innovative games of all of its available games.

All I see someone playing with words. Who gives a fuck for the reason why consoles have more innovative games. How is it even misleading? Are you one of those people that whenever you hear something like whatever is the best you make a bunch of excuses why like it even matters?

The heart of the matter is, consoles have more innovative games, no matter how you try and spin it.

Developing for a static platform (the console), the developer already establishes what can be done on the console and such, content can be concentrated on.

Actually that is a constraint which limits innovation in games on consoles because developers have many more technical limits than on an open platform like the PC. With the PC platform you may end up with some innovative games which require specialized hardware such as dedicated physics or network cards or specialized controllers, but that still produces innovation in aspects which are not possible on the fixed hardware of consoles.

You really need to look up the definition of innovation. If you say it has a feature better then most, its not innovative.

Yes, it is innovative, i.e. characterized by new methods, because the end result is a newer, smarter NPC which exceeds the previous iteration.

Funny how you realize that its just evolutionary

No, fool, learn to read. What I wrote is that one aspect of NOLF I mentioned is at least evolutionary if not totally novel.

a game cant be both sorry.

Sure it can, moron. It can be innovative in some aspects as FEAR is and evolutionary or derivative in others.

Name a single recent video game which is totally innovative in every aspect. You can't because all modern games derive at least one aspect from those that came before them.

I said there are more innovative games on the consoles and its true.

Yes, but it is a grossly misleading statement due to the fact that console games outnumber PC games by such a wide margin. The real question is what platform has the highest percentage of innovative games of all of its available games. I don't think it would be any of the current consoles although the WII and the DS certainly have a lot of novel uses for their respective controllers in games.

And please point to a fps that played like metroid prime.

I haven't played that game so I can't make a comparison. However I have played many PC FPS games, and they all aren't clones of one another despite your naive claim.

Man, I do hope the PC gamers out there get to play GoW. It was truly a feat of a game for the 360 and probably the single greatest game on that console right now. If I had to pick between Halo 2 for a Vista exclusive (which is BS, as with Jade Empire, the two should have been released on the PC platform well over a year ago), I'd pick Gears of War.

Then what is it? To say something is "innovative" means there is a basis for it already. "Innovative" over what else? Otherwise it could be called "original." And good AI isn't exactly original. So yes, it was definitely innovative how the AI worked in F.E.A.R., especially when PC FPS's generally have crappy enemies that are just fodder for mowing down.

a game cant be both sorry.

Why not? NOLF (and esp. NOLF 2) really pushed the PC FPS genre forward in several areas, most notably just how entertaining that kind of game can be. It took preexisting notions players take for granted in the genre and put innovative twists on them.

As for console games in general being innovative, that is only due to the sheer numbers of them being produced rather than anything native about the platform

Not at all. The PC game platform isn't fixed, and whether or not you take that as a negative/positive point, you have that sheer relativity with PC components and performance that doesn't exist on the console. Developing for a static platform (the console), the developer already establishes what can be done on the console and such, content can be concentrated on.

Yes, there is the sheer number of titles produced for consoles. There was once for the PC platform too, a number of years ago. Now, that shelf isn't so big.

That's 16. Or say 15 if you want to ignore Dawn of War. Let's see your 30 titles.

The only problem with that logic is that the PC platform is awesome for spawning originality, but not keeping it going.

Because dumbfucks in japan will buy any game that has gundam in the title

Really now, you think those kinds of people are only native to Japan? There are plenty of people you can spoon-feed shit to on a continuous basis in NA, Europe, Australia, South Korea...Ever heard of Electronic Arts or Activision?

While I'm not one of those people who are blindly impressed with Crysis (Far Cry with hyper-pretty graphics, woo-hoo), but I'll play it anyway because I enjoyed Far Cry so much.

JRPGs are glorified adventure games. Completely linear and stats are only a factor in combat. Oblivion is a completely different type of game. Do JRPGs have better stories and character development? Probably. Do they have better gameplay? Hardly.

Oh, yes, I agree with you there. Not to use a clichť, but it's a good example where East differs from the West. Such as most games developed in America/Europe rely on the overall design formula of having to obtain some result or end in the game. Be it overcome some enemy, baddy, neutralize something or someone, whatever. You have a beginning, you have an end, and the in-between is the "meat" so to speak.

The JRPG's are linear as hell, but as you said, tell excellent stories. Its mostly the contextual experience that's important. And that's probably where a lot of Americans get hung up on the highly rated JRPG series like Final Fantasy and Kingdom Hearts. Compared to a lot of American offerings, you really don't do a lot.

FEAR's AI is innovative in that it is significantly more intelligent than that found in most games and is even a noticeable step up from the AI in Monolith's previous games like NOLF 2 and Tron. FEAR also has bullet-time AND uses it effecively in network multiplayer which is innovative.

and nolf?

NOLF is innovative in its use of sophisticated humor to accentuate the story which is not an overt comedy by design. NOLF is also innovative or at least evolutionary in its mix of gameplay styles into a single FPS game, e.g. you can play many missions in stealth mode or in standard guns-blazing fashion. NOLF also has a very defined story/plot and is driven by it. That along with its female protagonist and the fact that it is not science-fiction based was certainly atypical for FPS games at the time of its release.

As for console games in general being innovative, that is only due to the sheer numbers of them being produced rather than anything native about the platform. For every Guitar Hero (which is derivative of Broderbund's Jam Session series of entertainment software for the Macintosh by the way), there are dozens if not hundreds of mee-too cartoon platformer games. As for FPS games on consoles, every one of them is a PC game derivative in at least some fashion.

It's funny, recently someone asked me why bandai is still around when they make nothing but bad games. Why? Because dumbfucks in japan will buy any game that has gundam in the title. Sort of reminds me of pc gamers.

You know why pc gamers are considered 2nd class citizens now? Because you dumb fucks will buy whatever generic rts or fps that comes out because the graphics are pretty.

It's pretty sad that most pc vs console debates come down to graphics, because to pc gamers gameplay is second afterall.

That is some of the most unsubstantiated bullshit I have heard in a long time, bravo, I actually reread that part, nothing after, for fear of losing my self in your swirling tide of a unique and preposterous stupidity.

The PC is the only platform where games with just gameplay and the shit ugliest graphics ever seen will get a fair shake.

A recent example DEFCON an ugly yet engaging game. I am at work can't type to much but I look forward to pointing out how stupid you are in the future.

I have no doubt in my mind I could name at least 2 innovative console games for every pc.

Alright, let's see then. Just quickly browsing through the games I have stashed outside of my closet, and I won't bring up Farcry, which I found fairly innovative, but you - in your bitter state of being - did not.

Let's see you bring up 2 for each one of mine.

Hostile WatersX seriesVampire BloodlinesTitan Quest / aka Diablo / aka Guild Wars. (I'll just call these one game).Company of HeroesDeus Ex seriesThiefJedi Knight seriesDawn of War - You can ignore this, I found it fairly innovative, but okay.The Sims series - all 847 of themPirates Rainbow Six seriesFear / aka Max Payne. I'll count em as one since they basically have the same gimmick.Any of the Total War series.NOLFOniBlack and White

That's just a quick grab from the games of the last five or so years (well, Oni is older than that I think).

That's 16. Or say 15 if you want to ignore Dawn of War. Let's see your 30 titles.